There are not two sides, there are three. Photographer took the photo, had no problem with fans using it, or with the band using it. He saw a third party sponsor of the band using it for advertising purposes, so he sent an email saying he normally charges 500+ euro for that but if they gave 100 euro to charity he'd be ok with the company using it. Company is claiming ignorance and a lack of intention to use the image for advertising (perhaps lying, but perhaps just naive) but forwarded the email to the band supposedly without understanding it. The band jumps all over the photographer for "threatening" the sponsor, ban him from events. Sponsor takes down the photo and apologizes. I see no beef between the photographer and the sponsor, just the band dogpiling the guy for wanting to get paid for his work (or at least not have it used freely for commercial purposes). The band is very obviously the only party in the wrong here and they're looking like idiots by continuing this fight. At this point they should just shut up and throw some money at the charity and try to save as much face as they can, but I somehow doubt that's what's going to happen.

Intention/ignorance only excuses people named Hillary Clinton. The businesspersons who make-up Arch Enemy, as many others have said, should really really have known better. Well, they DO. They're just hypocritical money-grubbing hacks, that's all.

There are not two sides, there are three. Photographer took the photo, had no problem with fans using it, or with the band using it. He saw a third party sponsor of the band using it for advertising purposes, so he sent an email saying he normally charges 500+ euro for that but if they gave 100 euro to charity he'd be ok with the company using it. Company is claiming ignorance and a lack of intention to use the image for advertising (perhaps lying, but perhaps just naive) but forwarded the email to the band supposedly without understanding it. The band jumps all over the photographer for "threatening" the sponsor, ban him from events. Sponsor takes down the photo and apologizes. I see no beef between the photographer and the sponsor, just the band dogpiling the guy for wanting to get paid for his work (or at least not have it used freely for commercial purposes). The band is very obviously the only party in the wrong here and they're looking like idiots by continuing this fight. At this point they should just shut up and throw some money at the charity and try to save as much face as they can, but I somehow doubt that's what's going to happen.

And quite honestly, I undestand both the photographer and company in this. The situation could have been resolved in a smoother fashion had the Arch Enemy camp not jumped in and started throwing accusations and threats at the photographer. Both the photographer's and the company's statements were adequate and showed that, even with the initial missunderstanding, they managed to come to a solution that would satisfy both parties.

It's really just the Arch Enemy camp at this point that is still failing hard. The statement that Alissa White-Gluz has made on her Facebook page two days ago has seen an overwhelmingly negative reaction among fans and metalheads. The comment section is filled with people mocking them for their bad PR, their use of the word "exposure" and total lack of consideration for the work of a fellow artist. The post has still not been taken down and/or been followed-up by a more comprehensive statement on her behalf.

I don't know how long they'll keep up this strategy, especially after the clothing company has made an official apology to the photographer.

There are not two sides, there are three. Photographer took the photo, had no problem with fans using it, or with the band using it. He saw a third party sponsor of the band using it for advertising purposes, so he sent an email saying he normally charges 500+ euro for that but if they gave 100 euro to charity he'd be ok with the company using it. Company is claiming ignorance and a lack of intention to use the image for advertising (perhaps lying, but perhaps just naive) but forwarded the email to the band supposedly without understanding it. The band jumps all over the photographer for "threatening" the sponsor, ban him from events. Sponsor takes down the photo and apologizes. I see no beef between the photographer and the sponsor, just the band dogpiling the guy for wanting to get paid for his work (or at least not have it used freely for commercial purposes). The band is very obviously the only party in the wrong here and they're looking like idiots by continuing this fight. At this point they should just shut up and throw some money at the charity and try to save as much face as they can, but I somehow doubt that's what's going to happen.

BastardHead wrote:

Temple of Blood is a disingenuous turd in like 90% of the conversations he participates in. Best to just throw him on the ignore list and carry on with life.

These are the correct takes for this thread.

_________________

Von Cichlid wrote:

I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

So after the second insult may I ask you politely to explain how I am being disingenuous in this discussion?

Because you come in a thread to say that the subject of the thread is shit and shouldn't be discussed. You contribute nothing to the thread and show disdain and contempt for people who are interested in the subject at hand. Is that as fair answer?

So after the second insult may I ask you politely to explain how I am being disingenuous in this discussion?

Because you come in a thread to say that the subject of the thread is shit and shouldn't be discussed. You contribute nothing to the thread and show disdain and contempt for people who are interested in the subject at hand. Is that as fair answer?

Because you come in a thread to say that the subject of the thread is shit and shouldn't be discussed. You contribute nothing to the thread and show disdain and contempt for people who are interested in the subject at hand. Is that as fair answer?

Lately something really fucked up is happening. Lots of HeavenDuff posts I agree with. I guess it's because I somewhat successfully ignore politics threads since I decided to post again.

Anyway, the post quoted above is spot on. Like, the very fact that this thread is one its second page after like a day makes it obvious people feel the need to discuss it, and in fact it's the very fucking point of forums that people discuss certain subjects. Someone posts something they think should be discussed, if no one is interested it will be on page three with no replies in a day, but obviously this is something people want to talk about, and again that's the fucking point of forums.

At the time of this writing, the reddit thread has 3688 comments. I rest my case.

Arch Enemy are one of the biggest, most popular active metal bands out there. Of course this situation is going to get people talking.

It's also a good occasion for us to discuss copyright, intellectual property, sharing arts (what is okay and what isn't). I mean. The debate goes beyond just how stupid Arch Enemy have been dealing with the situation.

I thought Michael and Angela were engaged at some time, but they never got married eventually

SculptedCold wrote:

Living_Ruins wrote:

Alissa says no commercial use was intended

Intention/ignorance only excuses people named Hillary Clinton. The businesspersons who make-up Arch Enemy, as many others have said, should really really have known better.

Well, yeah, I agree here. I think the best outcome right now would be Michael coming up and saying he paid the photographer in full and donated to charity as well, and also again apologizing on behalf of Angela, Alissa and the girl from Thunderball citing misunderstanding and consequent mishandling of the situation. I wonder how their relationships with other photographers are affected by that whole fiasco. And really don't understand the hate Angela has for photographers, that is some really weird overreacting, even though I admire her a lot

As many of you seems to follow this story, here's an update, and a final statement (you can see my previous statement and an apology from December 28 below).

The photographer, J. Salmeron, accepted my apology for reposting the photo he took, without having his permission, and as this was his request, I made a donation to the charity organization of his choice (the Dutch Cancer Society). I believe we can say this ends the dispute between us.

However, as I'm not able to handle the amount of hate and threats that I received and keep on receiving, I decided to do what I think is best in this situation. To end the being known as Thunderball Clothing (it's hard to use a word "company" here, as since day one it was just one person - me). I apologise for not being strong enough, and for not being next Internet hero that keep on saying "haters gonna hate". Within last 2 days I received literally hundreds of comments and messages that I'm a whore, a nazi, a communist, a worthless cunt, and that I either should quickly die, or that I should kill myself. There is no anger in me, and I apologise everyone that felt hurt or upset by this situation. Anyway, there is no Thunderball Clothing anymore. You won.

THUNDERBALL CLOTHING - STATEMENT / APOLOGY 28/12/2018

I would like to publicly apologise Mr J. Salmeron for reposting one of the photos he took, on my Instagram page, without having his permission. When few months ago I was reposting his photo from the Instagram page of the Arch Enemy singer Alissa White-Gluz, I was simply proud that such a great artist is wearing a clothing piece that I made, and wanted to share these news with my followers. As I did the repost with an app that included all original credits and watermarks, I thought that it's OK. I meant no harm, and it wasn't my intention to promote any product, however, I do agree that it might looked like that, and I understand that the author of the photography could feel upset about it. And I am sorry about it.

After I received an email message from J. Salmeron, who introduced himself as a lawyer and author of the photography, I interpreted it as another spam or scam (well, all of us receive this kind of emails all the time). I saw the amount of 500 Euro and the name of Alissa White-Gluz, from whom I reposted mentioned photo, so without going deeper into that message, I did what I thought was most logic - I contacted her, forwarded the original message that I got, and asked her what to do. I was instructed to take down the photo (what I immediatelly did), and was informed that someone else will take care of it. That again seemed logic, as I was aware that I'm not at the position of taking any actions on behalf of Arch Enemy, nor their members. I had no other contact with J. Salmeron, I haven't heard from him since then, and to be honest, for the last 6 months I had no idea that something is wrong, especially as the photo was taken down.

That being said, I would like to apologise J. Salmeron once again. Not only I'm willing to discuss with him how to compenaste him and fix the situation, but also how to make sure similar situation won't happen ever again. After all, we're all playing in the same team, and we all have one thing in common. We love music.

Marta Gabriel, Thunderball Clothing

CC Metal Blast

Quote:

Dear whoever is interested in the subject,

I am reacting to the bully rally this photographer has set lose with his well crafted (he took 6 months to get it done and released), well timed mash up of different subjects at hand.

The details often get lost in the emotion of the narrative - and the narrative is often controlled by who presents the story first. Mr photographer threw a bunch of different things into one pot and highly emotionalized it. Lets differentiate:

1)

Copyright issue. Arch Enemy did not post any of his pictures, no breach of copyright there.Alissa only re-tagged his image and got written permission of said photographer and actually got asked to re-post, after she fearfully removed the said photo. She refrained from doing so.Conclusion: Zero involvement oft he band or Alissa in any of the addressed matters. Leave Arch Enemy and Alissa out of it.

2)

Thunderball clothing / Marta: The lady re-posted the picture and said ‘thank you for wearing my custom made outfit’ along with it. Copyright breach, as this can be interpreted as commercial use. Not intentionally, because she wasn’t aware of that fine line - a lot of people on the internet are not actually. Anything you re-post is a breach of copyright actually. She removed as well immediately. She did not react to the donation request because she was not sure if its scam. Donating to a cancer research fund is not going to buy her the rights to use the photo commercially. Only a paid invoice to said photographer would do. So why didn’t he just invoice the 500 EUR and went ahead and donated it to said charity? That would have been much more transparent in every aspect.

The internet hate campaign has destroyed Marta’s business – all existing customers have cancelled their orders and/or returned their orders. She has received numerous death threads, accusations of being a Nazi and worse. She has closed her shop she built up for 8 years over this. Is mistake really that severe to justify this? NO. Is it justified to destroy an artist over this? NO.

3)

Angela Gossow, management:

This is an unfortunate situation and a private business conversation that was never meant for public consumption (unethical and contrary to the code of conduct for European lawyers) was being abused for this campaign. I was doing my position in my efforts to aggressively represent and protect my client and her business partner. I’m sorry that this has been made public and the issues are now misconstrued. I am personally shocked by the fact a business dispute turned into such a destructive wave of hate.

The claim I had him blacklisted with all agents, festivals etc is false! I did inform my circle of people I do not want him in the Arch Enemy photo pit again. I did not ask any promoters, festivals, magazines or whoever to ban him. Mr. photographer, give me one person who has removed you from their payroll because of me. Nobody? Thank you.

Why I changed some words in my previous posts – I received a legal letter from said Mr. photographer asking me to, otherwise he would pursue me legally for my wordings. The same happened to Alissa and Jeremy Saffer, who took his entire post down. So those going out on the fence defending us are being silenced. Freedom of speech? No, I don’t think so. I am sure I will have to edit some of this post as well because I expect to receive a legal letter from him again within the next 24 hours. Just saying.

Oh, and I took away the word sheep because those people who damaged Marta beyond repair, who are threatening Alissa and me in very serious ways are not sheep – they are much worse. They are bullies.

We wish to move on from this and wish Mr Photographer the best with the career.

You are welcome to discuss on my facebook page – no comments disabled. I will not tolerate any threats concerning my person, my family and my friends. These will be pursued.

Ah congratulations, looks like once again the dipshits with death threats and bigoted insults put the wrong party in the victim position and fuck it all up. Basically the same shit that happened with Rose on The Last Jedi or with the Ghostbusters reboot, subzero IQ pieces of shit ruining a legitimate case by turning the bad guys into the good guys.

Jesus. What a clusterfuck. Though, to be completely honest, a one-person business like that making custom one-off clothing pieces that operated under a brand name doesn't sound like the hardest business in the world to salvage. Use a pseudonym and make a new company. Though, of course she shouldn't have to do that, and the fans who were sending that woman death threats are goddamned idiots who should be ashamed of themselves for a) not looking into the whole of what happened here and b) being stupid and mean enough to send horrible threats to people over something that affects them only in the tiniest and most indirect way.

At least Gossow is publicly acknowledging some semblance of wrongdoing now, even if it is disingenuous and sort of a half-assed smirking apology. Honestly, she should also feel bad for dragging the Thunderball woman into this whole mess.

This band and everything around it is a well-oiled cash machine with no other intentions than money, money, money. Musical value and merit have been gone for a long time now and the whole reactions and behaviour of this company is beyond words and yet - not surprising.

I feel sorry for the clothing "company" and its demise. Shows how sick social media is these days. A bunch of real-life losers going ape-shit about something they clearly know nothing about. Sad.

Angela needs to drop the condescending attitude. I am not defending the mouthbreathers who posted genuine threats against Thunderball, but as others have noted the photographer and the clothing company had a misunderstanding they could have easily resolved had not Angela jumped in and made such a stink. The shitstorm she's calling out was mostly originated by her intervention, and it's sweet how she's now so indignant concerning "threats" and "bullies" when her first response to the photographer was "I'll make sure you never find work with anyone ever again". Just admit you handled things terribly and stop acting like everybody else is retarded.

I feel sorry for Thunderball because they were the only ones showing some common sense.

The photographer was in the right but he sounds like a bit of a dick tbh. This is one of those stories with no protagonist but a pretty solid antagonist.

Only natural when someone pulls the "you'll never work in this town again" bullshit you'd want to see them taken down a few pegs. And to be fair to him, he made it quite publicly clear that his beef was with the band (or more specifically Gossow), and not the clothing company.

Legally the lawyer(...:-p)/photographer is correct but I still think that if someone is taking a picture of me then I should be able to use it as well. After all it's the person in the picture that gives it value. It's just good manners really. Didn't read all the arguing between them that followed. I'm sure they'll get over it once they get diagnosed with cancer or when smth a bit more real happens in their lives.

damn thats too bad for that Marta girl and not deserved, though it almost feels like a push by AE to become the victim again instead of the aggressor. He clearly had a beef with the attitude of AE but they made it a fight in the hope he would shut up with their aggressive method. now he didn't and wanted to address something that happens with big bands apparently and they become more aggressive and still don't get the point that everyone who is not in their direct circle of influence agrees with. it's good that it blows up in their face honestly.

Legally the lawyer(...:-p)/photographer is correct but I still think that if someone is taking a picture of me then I should be able to use it as well. After all it's the person in the picture that gives it value. It's just good manners really. Didn't read all the arguing between them that followed. I'm sure they'll get over it once they get diagnosed with cancer or when smth a bit more real happens in their lives.

Well, he said he was fine with it when Alissa or fans shared it. It was when Thunderball shared it, ostensibly to use for advertisement, that he took an issue.

Their Facebook page is getting absolutely savaged in the comments sections by angry fans..The only thing that could be done to quell the masses is issue a genuine apology to the photographer and how they treated him like trash.

That won't help. I think it's pent up frustration with the band over a bunch of bad records, dislike of Angela and Alissa, wasting Loomis's talent, etc. This is just the final straw, because it's a ridiculously disproportional reaction.

1) The photographer was reasonable to expect compensation for commercial use of his work, and there is a point to be made about frequent improper use of photographers' work. That being said, the way he went about it - asking for a fee or a donation to charity, rather than cease-and-desist, comes across more like extortion than a legitimate legal action. As an attorney, he would know this, and as a metal writer, I'm sure he knew what he was doing in trying to make this a story.

2) Arch Enemy & co. handled this poorly and unprofessionally. Professionally-managed bands should know better than to get into public spats like this. At best, they are embarrassing, at worst they come out like this.

3) Marta Gabriel handled this honestly and fairly, yet she has faced the worst consequences for this. What was technically a mistake was still trivial, at worst. Hope things work out for her.

4) Anyone threatening or sending hate mail should be ashamed for their pathetic sliver of involvement.

I don't quite understand the set-up. Presumably he had a press pass for this festival and was in a pit for professional photographers. Why isn't this all clarified in the terms and conditions of that pass? Without that it's a legal minefield whether you should be taking pictures of people without their express permission (privacy laws and all that).

I feel this could have all been easily avoided with a little more communication. As many have said, the photographer was legally in the right but it seems as though he was more interested in conflict and making a story than finding a solution. It is an interesting day and age when someone would rather make and publish such a video online instead of writing a couple more emails and maybe making a phone call.

Last edited by c_ on Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's often like that. In a world were everyone is trying to screw each other over, giving people the benefit of the doubt or just acting in good faith makes no sense. The music scene, or just entertainment in general, seems pretty cut-throat at times, and people will step on others to get ahead.

I remember a 'reverse' situation about 10-15 years ago involving the band Twisted Sister suing a tiny hair cutting business called Twizted Sisterz' or something like that.

The band got mauled in the press saying they were bullies and that there was zero confusion in the market place and that they aren't harming anyone, blah blah blah...

If I recall correctly, JJ French in an interview basically agreed with the anger that was spewed at the band but explained that they needed to protect their trademark/copyright. If they didn't protect it in this instance, then what if some large multi million dollar company wanted to use some version of the wording 'Twisted Sister' it would hurt the bands ability to protect their TM in the court of law going forth....Can't really pick or choose how I took him explaining it....You gotta protect your work against those that might do your 'brand' harm in addition to those who may be using it totally innocently...

I see the similarity here.. Photographer was 100% in the right and generous to change his terms to make everyone look better. ....The band were using their higher standing in the music realm to bully him and it has backfired.... poor them.

^ That sadly is kind-of how it works. In issues of trademark, my understanding is that if you don't defend it in every instance, you significantly weaken your position when you do decide to defend it. So if they let that hair studio go, if a big company decide to infringe on the trademark they'd be much more likely to lose. So you have scenarios where companies sue small-fry folks who are technically infringing on the trademark but doing very little, or any, harm, when they don't want to (because they know it doesn't really impact them and/or because of the bad press it will generate) because they have to.

I remember a 'reverse' situation about 10-15 years ago involving the band Twisted Sister suing a tiny hair cutting business called Twizted Sisterz' or something like that.

The band got mauled in the press saying they were bullies and that there was zero confusion in the market place and that they aren't harming anyone, blah blah blah...

If I recall correctly, JJ French in an interview basically agreed with the anger that was spewed at the band but explained that they needed to protect their trademark/copyright. If they didn't protect it in this instance, then what if some large multi million dollar company wanted to use some version of the wording 'Twisted Sister' it would hurt the bands ability to protect their TM in the court of law going forth....Can't really pick or choose how I took him explaining it....You gotta protect your work against those that might do your 'brand' harm in addition to those who may be using it totally innocently...

I see the similarity here.. Photographer was 100% in the right and generous to change his terms to make everyone look better. ....The band were using their higher standing in the music realm to bully him and it has backfired.... poor them.

First off, I find Arch Enemy’s music to be awful, I am not a fan. I liked their first album when it came out, but not all that much.

Despite that, bands should be able to have control of who takes their photos, takes video, etc. of their performances. Why? Because they have the right to not be captured by unskilled photographers who may spread shitty photos around the web that poorly represent them. Or worse, poor sounding live videos that could deter people from attending their shows. They granted this guy access to both photograph them and access to a favorable area to do so. He shows no appreciation or value in that. He then takes a private matter public to sully a band’s reputation. Despite what tone or attitude their communication may have, this guy came at them as a lawyer. If you’re in the music business, you hate lawyers unless they’re working for you. Not very professional and I hope other bands tell him to fuck off when he requests special access to take their photos. He doesn’t have the right to bring his equipment into a concert and then receive access to a special area to take photos, that’s a granted privilege. If he wants to showcase the sausage making of the music business to shit on a band then other bands should take heed.

this guy came at them as a lawyer. If you’re in the music business, you hate lawyers unless they’re working for you.

He didn't actually come at them as anything. He wrote to the clothing company. The company then wrote to Arch Enemy, and then they jumped in a situation that didn't really concern them with fighting words. Now if they don't want him to shoot professionnally at their shows, it's their right, but they also threatened the guy to spread bad words about him, turning this into a bigger issue than what it is and making it personnal. Going public for him was a way to shed some light on the events and defend the job that professionnal photographers do against a band that clearly doesn't respect other artists and think that giving "exposure" to them is some kind of amazing gift, like they are some spoiled brats who should be grateful to even be allowed to take pictures of them.